These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Most ice miners are bots! *SHOCK* (not really...)
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aral Gnik
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#101 - 2012-02-03 21:10:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Aral Gnik
Avanzado,

This matter has been resolved between us.
Avanzado
Macros' Bane
#102 - 2012-02-03 22:01:45 UTC
Okay, I'll acknowledge that maybe a young, sick daughter was behind the controls.

But before, during, after I popped that ship ....the macro script was engaged. This is conclusive.



Aral Gnik wrote:
As a parent of this toon, I am a little disgusted at people that take killing supposed robominers into their own hands, at least in high sec.

Avanzado and his corp of two knuckledraggers (Macros' Bane) are on a mission to rid the belts of robominers, so that real miners can profit. Albeit a seemingly noble endeavor, this cretan and his crew are definitely misguided.

He supposedly has undisputable proof that he killed a robominer. What he accomplished was ruining the game for a young player who was sick home from school, mining semi-afk, went to the restroom and returned to panic at the computer...her hulk was toast. Sadly, she has no funds with to buy another, so instead of doing a service, Avanzado has just ruined it for a kid. A shame really. This account may go idle in the end. It is the mall cop mentality: too much power, a little self-righteousness, and little IQ...one can presume.

I'll grant you that her practice of semi-afk mining and going to the restroom while in 0.6 space was not advisable, she is forbidden from chatting in local or outside of our corp, due to language mainly. I should of put her up in 0.9 space somewhere, so bad on the parent too.

The methodology of putting math in local doesn't always work, and alas, someone gets pOOfed because of self-righteousness and a flawed methodology. Feel free to poke fun at Avanzado, set him to Terrible, and do collect the reward for podding him.Evil

Help protect the miners and industrialists, we make your ships, modules, and ammo!

Best regards,

Parent of Aral Gnik and EVE pilot since '08

[/quote]
Dan Osiris
Never Not Contract
#103 - 2012-02-04 03:52:29 UTC
not sure if this has been examined but if your sole purpose is to purify the mining systems of bots, why not announce in local that suicide gank fest is about to begin so that all non-bots have the opportunity to safe up?
Avanzado
Macros' Bane
#104 - 2012-02-04 04:51:34 UTC
Kill everyone who isn't attentive/literate?

Somehow I don't think that would get results or be good for PR :)

Dan Osiris wrote:
not sure if this has been examined but if your sole purpose is to purify the mining systems of bots, why not announce in local that suicide gank fest is about to begin so that all non-bots have the opportunity to safe up?
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#105 - 2012-02-08 09:32:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
After killing massive numbers of ice miners, both bots and real players:

I am coming to the conclusion I prefer the casual bots.

Kill them a few times, they are willing to pay a large sum to be left alone - because they can't defend themselves - and they know it. I suppose if CCP can look the other way and profit from it, so can I.

Regular miners generally just get mad.

Still, I've been reporting them for seven weeks straight now, and not a single bot has disappeared from my radar.
Makes me wonder - I could easily be doing this MUCH more cheaply if I use the 'evade Concordokken via Orca' trick.

If I started ganking Exhumers, ejecting, then scooping the Tornado into a 'neutral' Orca - then rinse and repeat, killing dozens of miners with a single magic Tornado.....

-would CCP look the other way for me, too?
Evil

Clean up your act CCP. Seriously.
Dan Osiris
Never Not Contract
#106 - 2012-02-09 01:37:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Dan Osiris
Avanzado wrote:
Kill everyone who isn't attentive/literate?

Somehow I don't think that would get results or be good for PR :)

Dan Osiris wrote:
not sure if this has been examined but if your sole purpose is to purify the mining systems of bots, why not announce in local that suicide gank fest is about to begin so that all non-bots have the opportunity to safe up?




if they are killing anyone regardless for the sake of ridding bots, then PR is irrelevant and therefore, yes it would be the fault of the illiterate or inattentive who don't safe up to lose their ships.
Baaa Shakiel
Kinnah Incorporated
#107 - 2012-02-13 17:11:35 UTC
To All You Miners Out There.
Mining is the worst Profession in EVE. Don't Do it unless You're Botting. (That's right you heard ME.) The Isk/hr vs Work involved/Boredom Induced/Risk is just too much to be worth it even in Hi-sec. One day, that HULK of yours will be popped, and your second Hulk loss will be following closely after that now that you have the gankers attention. Don't bother tanking it, NOT gonna work, I assure you. All it takes is a critical mass of Catalysts to push through that theoretical tank limit for gankers to engage all targets at will.

ONLY Exception to this rule is - If you're running Corp Mining OPs, but IMO Mining ops only have a inherent social value rather than financial value behind it. I've been a mining corp before. You always make more mining by yourself, but the risk of blowing up is THAT much higher.

Who Said that Noob Ships SuCK? http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15091146#lostLoadout

Buddy Program Available - Start off with Millions of Isk! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=9874&p=10
Baaa Shakiel
Kinnah Incorporated
#108 - 2012-02-13 17:12:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Baaa Shakiel
To All you Gankers/Ice-Interdictors/BOT-Purgers & OP
Your Intention is profoundly noble, Hats off to you Sir.
However, your methodology screams "Barbaric" all over the place.

Your Mode of Operation has a few problems.
1. You're only going to promote BOT-Mining. That's right you heard me. You're going to only PROMOTE BOT-MINING with your current MO.
2. There's also a strong likelihood that our current player-base will be compromised. Let me explain:
BOTs have a much larger resource over your Typical Miner Joe - TIME. Specifically, 161 hours(23/7)a week vs Average of 21(3/7) hours. And we all know that TIME = ISKies. So lets just think about this... Who is more likely to replace his Dead MACK? Not Joe.

Assuming you have an equal chance of killing a bot and a normal player since we really have no way of telling Bot from Player. The Pacifistic Mining guys who do it cos they enjoy blue lasers touching rocks will inevitably rage-quit. Nothing will change if "Human Collateral Damage" is acceptable, in fact BOTs will become more rampant the moment this activity hits a critical mass. Please rethink this aspect of your Bot-purge OP.

Additionally, has anyone founded a BOT-Purging Corp? I want in! o/

Edit: Noticed that Smodab does indeed announce his Bot-Purges. *Facepalm - I will hide in shame now. However, whats the time window on the purge? 5 Mins is too short IMO.

Also, I wonder if there is a PDF guide on Bot-Purging out there?

Who Said that Noob Ships SuCK? http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=15091146#lostLoadout

Buddy Program Available - Start off with Millions of Isk! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=9874&p=10
Vicky Somers
Rusty Anchor
#109 - 2012-02-14 11:42:15 UTC
Any exhumer or orca that puts cargohold optimization in the lows instead of a damage control deserves to die. This should be the criteria by which you select your gank targets. No damage control = death.
CaptainBrazil
Perkone
Caldari State
#110 - 2012-02-23 15:17:12 UTC
He is just a scammer using a escuse to robber, bribe and make money, take a look in the message he sent me after a wardeck made by his puppet corp:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Avanzado
Sent: 2012.02.20 19:07
To: CaptainBrazil,

Dear Sir,

I am quite willing to have you never mine in peace again.

BUT, I will drop all wardecs and call it even for a one-time fee of 1 billion ISK. 500M now, and 500M *after* you get the retraction notices. Please keep in mind that the deal will not be complete until you give the last payment of 500M, then our business will be done.

I will keep my word if you keep yours.

Think it over.

-Avanzado
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Just another "avanzado" robber scamming the mining corps. Btw, I didnt pay. Lol
Zathryon
Amarr General Drilling and Construction
#111 - 2012-02-23 18:01:07 UTC
this is BS...

I like mining (i know i make more money doing other things) but I LIKE IT! I do it because its a kind of zen peaceful thing that I do to relax from the real world.

and people like you discourage people like me (the NON BOTS) from mining! so who is going to be left? the people who actually make money from mining in hi-sec...and thats the BOT miners!

a**holes like you are increasing the percentage of bot miners by hurting the pockets of the honest miners.


trust me, i HATE bot miners! its bullsh*t that they can do that...but you people are making the problem worse! and youre hurting the honest miners in the process!!
Megnamon
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#112 - 2012-02-23 19:11:41 UTC
I think CCP should develop a method for identifying bots such as follows...

In high sec, the aggressing party can project an electronic verification tag onto a miner (done through either a new module or whatever). This tag gives the ship owner an audio and message warning and has a 15 minute countdown. The ship owner can at any time make a few simple clicks to disable the tag. If this is not done by the end of the countdown, the tagged ship is classified by CONCORD as being "abandoned" and can be aggressied without facing a CONCORD response.

Thoughts?
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#113 - 2012-02-23 19:29:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Revolution Rising
I am a miner and even although more rarely an ice miner.

I find it reprehensible.

It must not go on.

GOD WILLS IT!

I advocate this product and/or service.

.
T0RT0ISE
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2012-02-24 04:42:14 UTC
I wish I had the skills to kill PVE ships and cry on the forums about it.
Zathryon
Amarr General Drilling and Construction
#115 - 2012-02-24 07:36:00 UTC
Megnamon wrote:
I think CCP should develop a method for identifying bots such as follows...

In high sec, the aggressing party can project an electronic verification tag onto a miner (done through either a new module or whatever). This tag gives the ship owner an audio and message warning and has a 15 minute countdown. The ship owner can at any time make a few simple clicks to disable the tag. If this is not done by the end of the countdown, the tagged ship is classified by CONCORD as being "abandoned" and can be aggressied without facing a CONCORD response.

Thoughts?


that sounds like an excellent idea. sounds very simple to me, right click on a ship and hit "flag as bot"

they have a timer (hell it could be something dumb like 30 minutes) if they dont respond then anyone can shoot it (or concord kills it). if it happens more than say, 3 times, to a single character, ban the account.

done
Fluffi Flaffi
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2012-02-24 11:11:00 UTC
Useless idea, really!

Botters will find a way to work with this "problem" as well. They can acitivate Strip Miners, why shouldn't they can activate such a botton and I can imagine they can recognise such a method / audio as well to react on it. In the past they have reacted on messages in the local chat as well, so where should be the difference.

And this will even punish honest miners again, who are just doing afk mining and maybe forget their Hulk in belt because they were too busy with other things on their main account.

If CCP would generate such a process I guarantee you there will be hundreds of people flying all the time from belt to belt and mark everybody they find and this means as well the honest miners. And I am just not willing that other people get on my nerves by marking me every minute again and again. This is like bumping.

If CCP would really like to kick bots from their server they would have other options for sure. But they don't do it, because botters guarantee income like all other players do as well. Even if they would buy only Plex, but this will increase the plex price. Less people can afford plex (are willing to) and therefore buy GTCs instead of Plex from market.
CatreX Nolen
Doomheim
#117 - 2012-02-24 16:56:20 UTC
One of the things I love about EvE! It's a tad easier to mess the bots over. Unlike other MMO's where you can't do anything but report them and watch, here you can actually blow their asses to hell.
Bugsy VanHalen
Society of lost Souls
#118 - 2012-02-25 02:20:18 UTC
Megnamon wrote:
I think CCP should develop a method for identifying bots such as follows...

In high sec, the aggressing party can project an electronic verification tag onto a miner (done through either a new module or whatever). This tag gives the ship owner an audio and message warning and has a 15 minute countdown. The ship owner can at any time make a few simple clicks to disable the tag. If this is not done by the end of the countdown, the tagged ship is classified by CONCORD as being "abandoned" and can be aggressied without facing a CONCORD response.

Thoughts?


Sounds good in theory but the few simple clicks is a problem.

It would only be out a few days before the guys writing the bot programer added a function to perform those few simple clicks.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#119 - 2012-02-26 02:24:28 UTC
Bugsy VanHalen wrote:

It would only be out a few days before the guys writing the bot programer added a function to perform those few simple clicks.


I think you're being a few orders of magnitude too optimistic.

Bugsy's got the right idea here. Anything simple enough that it won't be a pain for humans is going to be easy to automate.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
anastasia kernsky
Clan Wolf Hunters
#120 - 2012-02-29 08:16:35 UTC
Megnamon wrote:
I think CCP should develop a method for identifying bots such as follows...

In high sec, the aggressing party can project an electronic verification tag onto a miner (done through either a new module or whatever). This tag gives the ship owner an audio and message warning and has a 15 minute countdown. The ship owner can at any time make a few simple clicks to disable the tag. If this is not done by the end of the countdown, the tagged ship is classified by CONCORD as being "abandoned" and can be aggressied without facing a CONCORD response.

Thoughts?



i have fallen asleep while mining so far ive been lucky that i have not been poped but i do not like your idea because that would allow u to attack a honest miner. usually ill will fly to a safe spot befor falling asleep not all ways.

to me i think all those who gank miners are just sad. i under stand we have botters in the mining belts but 2 wrong dont make a right. like its been said before the more non botters u kill the more u make it profitable for the botters by the way botters can bot hauling missions so saying that mining is the only place bots are think again

if u really want to stop bots i know u have a corp so plan a watch system with corp members to see if there on 24/7 for a month if they are then by all means blow them up report them then u have enough proof that there a bot to get them banned u will get less honest miners (botters are greedy so they leave their system on while there at work and while they sleep)

if thats to much work for u than leave the miners alone we dont need a lazy bot purger
laziness is what created bots

one question for u is if u are wardec will u sill be able to kill the miners or would u use alt to do it if u use alt during a wardec than u are to afraid to pvp but if u say yes u still will kill miners then go to low sec and leave us to fix are own problems

PVPers and Ganker get Kittend off when u threten there ez way of life with a change to something that would challenge them